Cash v. Winn
205 Cal. App. 4th 1285
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cash, not a licensed nurse, cared for Winn in Winn's home; wage order No. 15 exempts a 'personal attendant' who primarily supervises, feeds, or dresses the client.
- Exemption applies only when no significant amount of other work is required; 'significant' defined as more than 20% of weekly time.
- Cash's duties included caregiving and substantial household tasks, with occasional health-care-related activities (e.g., blood sugar testing, pulse checks).
- DLSE interpretive bulletin 86-1 and DLSE opinion letters suggested a health-care exception to the personal attendant exemption for regular health-care duties.
- The trial court instructed the jury with a fourth paragraph creating a broad health-care exception, regardless of time spent on such tasks.
- The jury found Cash primarily performed supervisory, feeding, and dressing duties, with health-care tasks not exceeding 20% of time, but also found she regularly administered health care services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a broad health-care exception overrides the personal attendant exemption | Cash argues regular health-care tasks remove exemption even if minor or incidental. | Winn argues no such broad exception exists in Wage Order 15. | No broad health-care exception; error to instruct otherwise |
| Whether the 20% 'significant work' threshold correctly limits the exemption | Cash’s health-care duties should remove exemption if regular, regardless of time. | 20% rule appropriately limits when tasks are significant. | 20% rule is a reasonable interpretation; not dispositive where other error found |
| Whether the court erred by denying Winn's JNOV motion | Cash’s evidence showed health-care duties predominated, defeating exemption. | Jury found Cash mainly performed supervisory duties; exemption should apply. | Court erred; grant JNOV for Winn; judgment in Winn's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardenas v. Mission Industries, 226 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (boarder on interim interpretation of personal attendant status; 20% rule referenced)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (DLSE policy not controlling; wage order interpretations clarified)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (DLSE interpretive policies void if not APA-promulgated)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employers burden to raise/define overtime exemptions; interpret narrowly)
- United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, 190 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. App. 2010) (exemption interpretations; policy favoring worker protection)
- Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 554 (Cal. 2007) (DP A Pacific Northwest; interpretation of wage-order provisions)